Autonomy CoN as of 13 JAN 2025 for public comments.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES ARMY FUTURES COMMAND

210 West 7th Street, Austin TX 78701

FCCG 13 January 2025

MEMORANDUM FROM Commander, U.S. Army Futures Command

MEMORANDUM THRU Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army

FOR Chief of Staff, U.S. Army

SUBJECT: Autonomy Characteristics of Need to Support Human Machine Integrated Formations

1. Situation. Military operations in the air and ground littoral are already and will increasingly be dominated by the integration of humans and machines. As the number of machines – robots, drones, sensors, and command systems – increase, the Army must rely on autonomy to relieve humans of direct control and analysis tasks in favor of cognitive tasks – command - machines are incapable of performing. The battlefield on which these teams operate will feature degraded communications, physical and electronic deception, changing physical terrain characteristics, and constant threat of enemy attacks. Autonomy, or the degree to which a system can execute a given task independently, is best conceptualized as a spectrum of capability that can be tailored for a specific mission, level of risk, and degree of human-machine interaction. Autonomous capabilities are not limited to enabling movement and target detection but can greatly enhance a multitude of tasks including predictive logistics, pre-mission planning, battlefield management and orchestration, debriefing, training, decision aids, and mission execution with both lethal and non-lethal effects. Autonomous systems will enhance the operational impact of each Soldier by increasing the speed and scale at which the Army turns data into information and action, thereby increasing Operations Tempo (OPTEMPO), efficiency, and lethality of our formations.

2. Problem. The Army must leverage both the technological advances and industry best practices for integrating autonomous systems into how the Army plans, trains, and executes missions in a contested and dynamic operational environment. The Army requires assistance with making its data usable, developing procedures to train autonomous systems, delineating the right level of autonomy for different types of systems, and integrating autonomy into our air, ground, intelligence, and command and control systems.

3. Objective. A characteristic of need (CoN) statement is the Army’s primary means to initiate a requirements dialogue with industry by providing an overarching description of a complex transformation challenge and desired characteristics without prescribing a solution. The primary objective of this CoN Statement is to describe a holistic and integrated approach for continuous insertion of autonomy-enabled capabilities across

FCCG

warfighting functions that capitalizes on the rapid innovation afforded by software-centric capabilities. This will facilitate the development of more agile, adaptable, and effective autonomous systems, ultimately enhancing the Army's capabilities in future conflicts.

4. Key Characteristics. Autonomous systems must be reliable, tailorable, efficient, continuously learning, and integrated into all aspects of military operations.

Components:

a) Control autonomy: This aspect of autonomy primarily focuses on planning and collaboration. It involves the systems and algorithms responsible for high-level decision-making, such as route planning, task prioritization, and mission execution. Control autonomy enables an autonomous system to operate cohesively with other units, whether human or machine, by interpreting mission objectives, generating plans, and adjusting those plans dynamically based on changes in the environment or mission priorities. Collaboration is a key feature of control autonomy, as it requires robust communication protocols and the ability to synchronize actions across a network of systems. This ensures that the autonomous system contributes effectively to a larger operational framework, whether in isolation or as part of a team.

b) Payload autonomy: Payload autonomy is centered on the effects and functionality of the specific payloads carried by the autonomous system. This includes the integration and operation of mission-specific equipment, such as sensors, weapons, communication devices, or other specialized tools. Payload autonomy ensures that the system can independently utilize its payloads to achieve desired effects without requiring constant human oversight.

c) Platform autonomy: Platform autonomy is focused on mobility and maneuver in the air, on and below the ground, and on the water. This encompasses the autonomous capabilities required for navigating air and ground platforms and interacting with the physical environment, such as spatial understanding, obstacle avoidance, and path optimization. Platform autonomy also enables the system to maneuver tactically through the environment to a position of relative advantage, taking into account signature management, sight lines and known or suspected enemy positions.

Common Characteristics

d) Autonomous systems must be adaptable. Just as Soldiers adapt to changing environments and enemy tactics, so too must autonomous systems.

e) Command and Control (C2). Must be fully converged with the Next Generation

Command and Control (NGC2) architecture that ensures robust, real-time communications secure, and automatic data sharing across platform and unit boundaries. Data must flow between systems with minimal human intervention. The solution for autonomy must integrate into the Army’s overarching approach for command and control as articulated in “Update #1 Next Generation Command and Control Characteristics of Need.”

f) Cyber Secure. Autonomous systems must be designed with cybersecurity in mind, incorporating robust security measures such as secure communication protocols, intrusion detection and prevention, and regular security updates.

g) Decrease Reliance on the Network. Air and ground autonomous systems have shared characteristics of need. To prevent susceptibility to electronic warfare attack, autonomous capabilities must physically reside on systems. This will inherently constrain their size, weight, and power, and will require technologically advanced solutions, especially in the domain of small aerial drones.

h) Ability to Scale. The ability of industry to build components at scale is an important consideration, as the Army will require mass production of robots, controllers, and other systems in time of war. A solution that can be quickly and cheaply produced but does not fill all desired capabilities is preferable to an exquisite solution that can only be produced in limited qualities due to cost, supply chain, or expertise.

Specific Characteristics:

i) One to Many. Autonomous systems must provide a net efficiency gain in human activity. This requires a Soldier to command multiple autonomous systems simultaneously with sustainable cognitive load. The more systems a Soldier can reasonably control, the greater our ability to mass effects on the battlefield. Also, systems need to mature to cooperative behaviors between other autonomous systems and manned systems.

j) Common Control. Soldiers will be required to control heterogenous robotic formations comprised of many autonomous assets. Soldiers need the ability to pass control of autonomous systems to another unit as the situation demands. Common control software agnostic of end user device or employed systems is essential to enable these autonomous behaviors. Common control also enables trainability.

k) Rapidly Upgradable. Autonomous systems must be designed to enable rapid upgrades and updates to their software and firmware, ensuring that they can adapt to changing operational requirements, emerging threats and technological innovations.

This is enabled by MOSA software approaches, Over-the-Air updates and standardized interfaces.

l) Autonomy Architecture & Data Strategy. Autonomous components must support a Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) software framework with associated data standards. MOSA will provide a baseline foundation for autonomous solutions where incremental additions, system replacement and components maintenance are streamlined. Portability of algorithms from one system to the next is important to maximize capability and minimize vendor lock. While individual software components do not need to be government-owned, a government owned and managed Autonomy Reference Architecture is critical to effective implementation for rapid and affordable upgrades. The government should not prescribe up-front a Reference Architecture. Instead, it should be emergent through government-industry partnership and derived knowledge from initial prototyping efforts under this CoN.

m) DOTMLPF-P. Autonomy will require more than delivery of materiel solutions.

The Army must build the skills, knowledge, and attributes required to operate, interact, and command human-machine integrated formations, which will require new methods of training and leader development, an area in which industry and academia already operate in. The Army will need to identify and advocate for policy changes that will enable better coordination with industry to be agile and adaptive to the rapid pace of technological development. There may be other non-materiel actions industry can propose to better enable the degree of autonomy desired.

5. Amendments. This Characteristics of Need statement is a living document and will be updated as required based on technological observations and lessons learned through experimentation. At a minimum it will be reviewed every 90 days by the Commanding General, Army Futures Command.

JAMES E. RAINEY

GEN, USA

Commanding